Biden – Modern Romanticism

Politics – “Biden – the Face of Weak Leadership” – 2/24/2022

“When character is neglected for its objective value, then no matter the title to the leadership position, leadership, itself, becomes ruined.”
– Modern Romanticism

The definition of leadership is not meant to be subjective.

Although, some fools will take the meaning of a thing that it defines itself to whatever a person says it means. Universal meanings for certain definitions that are meant to be kept whole, unchanged, to be passed on through their preservation is what resists a nation’s divides.

Some fool has said that art is art because the artist said it is art. Then, some other fool will say that one other definition to a thing is itself because the definer to it had said so. Is leadership caught up in this curse? I would think so. Whether art or leadership or anything else, such essences cannot be defined according to the singular person. Preservation to the meaning of a thing must be kept intact, because our greatest long-term divide is to lose the meaning of it.

Why are human ever divided? It is always based on miscomprehension. Whether art or leadership or anything else to the meaning of it, it was rendered a Nihilistic meaninglessness because of simple misunderstanding. Yet, being misunderstood is also an insult. If one must tell the world who they are, rather than show themselves to the world, they are a deceiver. If there is no proof and no evidence, then you do lie. Leadership, in specifics, is not what it is when a person must explain it through words, rather than reveal it at first glance.

Then, how should a leadership be judged? It would not be based on experience or knowledge. It is more based on what is seen at first glance. Weakness to a leadership is through character. A strong leadership displays the objectively correct character. And how is that character determined as correct? It is, when the leadership is judged by another nation’s leader.

Weak leadership lacks heart. To the heart, there is care for one’s country. To the mind and some fool’s value to it, for leadership’s sake, that something as knowledge and resource is the betterment for a leadership position, will simply result in the division that another leader will exploit. An exploitation, as this, refers to the weakness of the leader for how such focuses on the value of the resource (the mind) over care or correct character (the heart). A divided heart is merely a missing heart. A focus on resources, over the heart, is how a nation becomes divided, through its incessant infighting over them.

A stronger leadership comprehends what is divided to another nation, meant to be understood, during some former time, as the strongest over the other, enough to exploit how the heart is missing. One leadership with its heart as absent is going to be divided over resources. The exploitation is in how the heart compares to character, and if such is seen to be weak or missing from another nation, the once-strong nation will not be taken with much regard for remaining strength.

Define what is strong, in the objective sense, to a leadership, and you have the correct character. An incorrect character is a missing character. That character, being absent, is going to be seen of its void to the strong leadership with a present character. One cannot have their character divided, though missing, because when you lead, what is valued is not your experience nor knowledge, though what is felt upon the observer at first glance to you.

Philosophy – “Theorizing the Origin to Divide & Conquer” – 6/21/2021

“A people are divided when their home is never secure.”
– Modern Romanticism

Leadership should not defend its people, due to its focus meaning to be the nation. Leadership should support the nation, not the people. If the opposite is the focus for leadership, then the nation becomes neglected. When a nation is neglected, the people become divided the same way an earthquake breaks apart land. Groups are formed, under the divided crust, metaphorically so. Divided crust, being a metaphor, though in relation to how a nation, when neglected, divides the people.

Unity is not the motive to a leadership that focuses on its people, while neglecting or even rejecting the values their nation have upholded. Erasing these values, is to replace such with chaos. Order is the same as a unification to a nation, because a leadership cannot unify a people without force.

Forcing a people, not ever setting the example, is to make slavery out of those who attempt to be individualized among such set collectives. Among division, there is different collectives, not individuals who can be told apart. It is chaos, mingling together, that cannot be differed apart. Groups are compiled with the individuals, within it. Though, nothing is told apart when the collective refuse the value of individualism.

It is individualism that sets the example. Leadership, through example, is to value the individualized nation, not its focus upon the people. Individualism focuses upon individualism, forming connection out of admitted incapability. Though, a group, through its pride, would not admit to such. Incapability is to individualism, though stubbornness unto pride will be to a collective or group.

A leadership can divide a people, when the singular support, individualized on its own as a nation, becomes divided beneath them. A people are divided when their support, being the land or nation they have walked upon, is divided. This was, again, because of the current leadership not focusing on the nation, though the people.

A leadership can conquer a people, when such never is together under true unity. Individualism is stopped under first the negligence to the nation, and then the people neglecting or rejecting each other.

Philosophy – “Why Politicians are Incapable of Compassion” – 3/19/2021

“Know always that the face that never even is truthful with the self can spread upon the grieving fellow the coat of sugar that reveals only the deception he’s believed in.”
– Modern Romanticism

Nothing is as kind as deception. It is what we mistake, of the politician, for compassion. We refuse in the attempt to see past the face of theirs to notice something that would not blossom with truth. Truth has never resided in them, nor from them and for the world. Among the politician who shares his consolation towards grief, comprehend only that deception is the softness he brings. Comprehend only that he is not there to bring you truth of any matter, since through deception, what will ease the grief is only what has been a part of him.

If the politician ever grieves, it is then over their lost humanity. In their mind, it has become a forgotten element, this necessity for being human, so the deception lends itself as a comforting arm to the grieving individual. As in, to place deception in the most shielding warmth, though forgetting about who they helped, since it was never sincere.

No politician is capable of compassion, since the profession allows for a certain contrast between itself and whatever is at their home. Such a contrast to differ the career as a politician, from life among the ordinary. How does a politician perform outside of the succumbing stage act of deception before the multitude of cameras? Is he revealing the truth, at his home? Does he become drunk, strike his kids into being bloodied, thrust his wife with the needed force for the committal of marital rape, to then pass out upon the couch? Such shocking habits would not be caught anywhere on the camera, of one that defends the image of such a politician.

Yet, the most shocking aspects to a person are their truths. It is of things they hide from the world or the entire universe. It allows for endless question upon the “behind the scenes” lifestyles of a politician, as it does for the celebrity. Those we expect to resemble perfection, without flaws, are those politicians whose own grief is their humanity. Is their truth a horror behind the windows, doors and walls of their home? Do they act in ways that would destroy our long-understood comprehensions of them?

As compassion would express a mote of truth, nothing can be of that from the open mouth or caress from fingers offered by the politician. Empathy requires a connection of truth. A lightning-quick access of the heart, as is the signal to empathy’s depiction of another’s pain to ourselves. It is that the unknown aspects of those “behind the scenes” lifestyles to the politician are so unknown, that what we do understand remains as the “truth”, yet varnished.

Political – “Republicans versus Democrats: On the Pandemic” – 2/9/2021

“It is only those who live among prosperity who can afford, and also side, with realism and the realist. Whereas, it is when people live among poverty that they can afford, and also side, with idealism and the idealist.”
– Modern Romanticism

To simplify the very difference between the feuding Republicans to the Democrats, in American politics, is to differ the realist from the idealist.

During President Trump’s rule, 3 entire years passed without a sign of the oncoming pandemic that hit during his 4th year. There were perhaps warnings of it, during the 3rd year’s ending. However, who could ever predict what would come upon a nation, beginning to thrive? Trump’s hay-day of 3 years gave America the understanding to the word “plenty”. Of economic benefits, to policies that shaped the nation, itself, to a leadership by example that showed other nation’s leadership that the only correct path is to take care of your own. How else to “lead by example”, if not to promote one’s nation and patriotism, so that other places follow suit of that correct mentality?

Though, the Republicans and Trump are all realists. To bring about “plenty” for a nation that did not yet have it, was for the necessity of perception. To see flaws, one needs to see beyond the veil of what deceives people. That is always factual. People will be content, until they are shown objective betterment. Just as a child who was abused for the majority of their early lives, now begins to understand the meaning for why his or her rescuers took him or her from such a terrible area.

“Plenty”, for a nation, soon dried up, upon the hit of the pandemic to the United States. “Plenty” was no longer a word in anyone’s mind. Only words such as “loss” and “poverty” were the new vocabulary. Of course, that naturally draws in the idealist.

This is where an American Democrat, or perhaps any form of Democrat, gains power. During the beginning of this crisis, the Democratic party saw opportunity. They saw a place to take shape. Idealism always grows newness, to take the place of the “old” with the “new”. Idealism is a mindset that replaces everything deemed to be “obsolete”. It’s the very nature of innovation.

Trump was soon seen as useless. Though, it was only because his current levels of poverty could not be raised back to place of prosperity it once was at. It was also because of how a realist’s mindset simply does not operate well in a world riddled with crisis.

The idealist knows their playground is the crisis. And, so, the Democrats, as the idealists and seekers of change they are, can comprehend so easily what this current pandemic is for them. It is a place for their empire to be built, upon the bones of many dead infected. That is simply how the idealist manages themselves. An idealist’s world does not consist of benefiting from a world full of plenty. For it is a realist who takes advantage of plenty. Whereas, it is an idealist who takes advantage of poverty.

Philosophy – “The Objective Problem with Diversity” – 1/22/2021

“Split the gathered knowledge in a mind, and once more, one gets the many words for separate books, put upon library shelves to be abandoned.”
– Modern Romanticism

It should be noted immediately that the only result of diversity, upon when it is forced, is ignorance. Does one not force apart a thing, after it has been gathered together for its creation of wholeness? Would one of their adoration upon diversity direct this towards families, separating perhaps fathers from the unit? That has already occurred.

Perhaps the cruelty in this mindset would be better off causing deliberate grief, in the killing of children of their own mothers? Though, why not “go that far”, when such is down the same path?

Diversity, according to the causation of it, leaves a stain of what was bled. As in, through what was ripped apart, whether being of flesh (an abortion) or of communities (of mind), relates to the reminder of all that was lost. What cannot be torn away is the love that did indeed unify a thing, in creation. For it was to the opposite form, of true diversity, that “creation” brought about the differing colors. No one “introduces diversity” without being the deconstructionist who tears down what was already naturally built. Once more, why not cultivate this mindset to be something for people to kill off others, in the name of the pangs of grief, of the heated despair caused by loneliness? It is all down the same path.

Diversity, when introduced, deconstructs. It tears apart. An example of an abortion is the causation, not the creation, of diversity. An example of a psychopath dismembering a person, is what is “causation” to diversity. Though, what of love? How does a person side with choice, though also side with love? It cannot be, that according to what love represents, there is choice involved. Love involves no choice. How then, does a person who sides with this cruel form of diversity, ever comprehend what it means to unify?

The ignorance that is caused by this cruel form of diversity disallows all people from realizing what creates unity. That is, creation, itself, is the breeder of unity. We do not cause diversity in the name of unity. We create diversity in the name of unity.

Political – “Targeting the Source – in Reference to January 6th” – 1/11/2021

“When the source is ignored, distractions are born. Who becomes the distraction? It is the one who wishes to cure the true diseases of this world.”
– Modern Romanticism

On January 6th, 2021, Trump supporters (MAGA) “stormed the Capitol” in an effort to stall the proceedings of the electoral voting count.

To make it plain, that was their “source” for what angered them.

It should be clear, though not so much to most, that the American Democratic party fervently dislikes when the source is ever targeted. It is why they condone BLM and Antifa riots, when they end up burning down a Wendy’s or a Starbucks.

Almost none of what either BLM or Antifa targeted, as their problem, was the source to what they find an issue with. Because, unless it is America, itself, for which they believe is that “source”, then they have no true motive other than sheer destruction.

The American party of Democrats has long promoted a system called “free healthcare”. Or, rather, they believe that the system of healthcare should be “changed”. Is it not the objective source to any problem, pertaining to health, that belongs solely with the individual? As in, is it not factual that the source to people’s problem with health, has nothing to do with the system or of external factors needing to be “changed”? Does it not all solely depend on one’s personal responsibility? This would mean that it is an inward, not an outward, problem.

For the reason that the source of a health issue is not to change up what distracts us from the source, being ourselves, is also why Democrats promote such a measure. Their philosophies dictate that when it comes to targeting the source of any issue, there will be truth forcefully exposed. Therefore, by causing the American people to focus on a distraction, such as Trump, himself, the source of any issue is never looked upon. If Democrats believed in cures, they would never believe that healthcare to be changed is a worthwhile proposition. If Democrats believed in cures, they would believe in truth.

Targeting any source requires inward focus. Therefore, those Trump “rioters” did just that. For corruption does not ever show itself, so plainly. It hides itself behind a smile, while seduction tempts a person into noticing distractions. Those distractions will sway a person, turning their eyes away from the “source”, for it is with a Democrat’s philosophy to never blame the self. As much as a Democrat will never blame themselves, admit their hypocrisy, is for the same reason they have played the blame game for four long years.

It is within a Democrat’s philosophy to make a citizen continually rely on, or focus on, distractions. When no one is looking at the source, one is looking outside of themselves, at everything related to an appearance. What is related to appearances, are words. What is not related to appearances, are actions. Actions do not rely on image. Actions rely on humility.

When no one sees the source, people only ever see those distractions, which are the appearances that endlessly seduce. When a person looks at the mirror of themselves, accepts themselves only for their appearance, they are not looking anywhere deeper.

When a person can be distracted from the source to see distractions, it was only ever the voice of deceit that told a person to focus on them.